The expediency of sanctioning a review of decisions of the Commissioners or arbiter may be deemed questionable. They were all of high character, peculiarly qualified for the trust conferred upon them. It is for Congress to consider the conveniences and inconveniences of such a precedent, when the Government, in all its branches, may be considered to have already fulfilled its duty to the claimants, collectively and individually. The whole subject is one of a purely legislative character, affecting a fund which, although it came into the Treasury in a peculiar manner, seems to me to belong to the United States. This Department has no authority to inquire whether there are equities existing on the part of any of our citizens which Congress ought to consult in directing the disposition of the fund. If Congress should impose any inquiry of that nature upon the Department, it would undertake the performance of it cheerfully and with a purpose only to consult justice and the public advantage. But the Department sees no ground for recommending such a measure in the present case. I have the honor to be, Sir, your very obedient servant, WILLIAM H. SEWARD. HON. CHARLES SUMNER, _Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate_. (B). Page 454. CLAIMS SINCE THE AWARD. It remains to speak of claims which have been brought forward or renewed since the awards were made. One of these is that of Matthew Rooney, master of the bark Caldera, which had been presented to the Commissioners, but was not considered by them, in the absence of proof of citizenship. In 1864 his representatives produced to Mr. Burlingame evidence on this head, and the latter directed that he should be paid in the same manner and proportion as other persons interested in the same class of claims had been paid by order of Mr. Ward, our Minister at Peking.[139] Mr. Burlingame says, in his dispatch reporting the action which he had taken in this matter: “There is no other demand that can ever come up for payment out of this Indemnity Fund, which has not been examined and decided.”[140] Other claims have, however, been brought to notice. Some of these are known as the Caldera claims; another is the Neva or Nott & Co.’s claim. * * * * *